U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Wisconsin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2020, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,580,317 times
Reputation: 3365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sub View Post
I wholeheartedly agree that absentee voting should be more limited and also require some very good reasoning for needing it.
Very good reasoning.... How about: "I am or may be physically vulnerable, or I have regular contact with other people who are, so I don't want to risk catching Covid-19 if other options are available"?

Who would be the arbiter of "very good reasoning" when requests are made? Isn't this just another manifestation of "Nanny State" government?

Absentee balloting works very well in Wisconsin (and in many other places in the U.S.). But I'm not sure I need a committee to decide if my reasons for using it are "valid."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2020, 08:09 AM
sub
 
Location: Up North
2,614 posts, read 1,130,825 times
Reputation: 3615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax View Post
Very good reasoning.... How about: "I am or may be physically vulnerable, or I have regular contact with other people who are, so I don't want to risk catching Covid-19 if other options are available"?

Who would be the arbiter of "very good reasoning" when requests are made? Isn't this just another manifestation of "Nanny State" government?

Absentee balloting works very well in Wisconsin (and in many other places in the U.S.). But I'm not sure I need a committee to decide if my reasons for using it are "valid."
Of course there should be reasonable parameters.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2020, 09:24 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,729 posts, read 1,969,135 times
Reputation: 11273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax View Post

They generally don't drive, but their bus pass photos and other forms of ID don't qualify as acceptable government-issued (DOT) or institution-issued IDs.

It isn't a huge group of people within the voting-age population, and many have only a spotty history of voting anyhow, but yeah, requiring a government-issued ID can present a barrier to them for voting.
BS. Most states require a photo ID for public trans passes, and two states now, including ultra-liberal MA, require photo IDs to use an EBT/SNAP ("food stamps") card. Many states have legislation pending for the requirement.

Your attitude is what I'm referring to about "smells of sinister motives." Yours is a pretty weak argument against a cheap, easy step to help ensure the integrity of our electoral process.

But then, I guess we need to excuse you. We must remember that Liberals live in FantasyLand where everything is perfect.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2020, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,580,317 times
Reputation: 3365
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
BS. Most states require a photo ID for public trans passes, and two states now, including ultra-liberal MA, require photo IDs to use an EBT/SNAP ("food stamps") card. Many states have legislation pending for the requirement.
Photo ID is not always a government-issued or institution-issued photo ID. (I got my local bus pass here without a government-issued ID.) This was a point of contention during the ID debates in Wisconsin, if you recall.

Quote:
Your attitude is what I'm referring to about "smells of sinister motives." Yours is a pretty weak argument against a cheap, easy step to help ensure the integrity of our electoral process.
I wasn't trying to "argue" anything, but rather conveyed a rationale that some people hold with regard to photo IDs for voting (I began my statement with "From what I recall"--an indication that I'm not necessarily providing my own personal opinion). I'm sympathetic to the argument, but don't fully agree with it.

In fact, I personally support the use of photo IDs, though I think the kinds allowed should be expanded to include some IDs that are not government- and institution-issued. Additionally, with a photo ID req in place there should be greater efforts by the government to make sure that official IDs are easier to obtain for people of submodest means.

Your response ("smells of sinister motives") precisely shows how some people jump the gun and derive false conclusions from limited information. You assumed that my representation of another perspective (as a response to a previous poster's statement) was entirely my own.


Quote:
But then, I guess we need to excuse you. We must remember that Liberals live in FantasyLand where everything is perfect.
Lol-- right from the Infowars playbook. "Physician, heal thyself."

Last edited by Empidonax; 11-05-2020 at 10:31 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2020, 11:22 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
4,729 posts, read 1,969,135 times
Reputation: 11273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax View Post
Your response ("smells of sinister motives") precisely shows how some people jump the gun and derive false conclusions from limited information.
Deductive reasoning lists all explanations, eliminates the impossibilities and only a single explanation remains-- easy to do in works of fiction; quite uncommon in the real word....Here must use inductive reasoning-- list all possibilities and assign weights to them--often can only be done subjectively-- so the list progresses from most likely to least likely.

In regards attempts to ensure voting integrity, altruism as a motive behind opposing photo IDs has to rate really low on the list. Much more likely is that the opponents conflate low income/difficult travel/difficult to obtain photo ID with probable Dem votes. Pretty racist attitude, if you ask me.

My conclusions have nothing to do with what political opinions I may or may not have...It's pure observations-->analysis-->conclusions-- usually all possibilities, weighted as to likelihood, without exclusions.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2020, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,580,317 times
Reputation: 3365
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

In regards attempts to ensure voting integrity, altruism as a motive behind opposing photo IDs has to rate really low on the list. Much more likely is that the opponents conflate low income/difficult travel/difficult to obtain photo ID with probable Dem votes. Pretty racist attitude, if you ask me.
It depends on who the people are. When Dems and left-leaning groups try to push voter registration and "get out the vote," surely they are doing so with implicit or explicit hopes that the votes will be in their favor. If the people they (feel the) need to reach are minorities or other demographic groups that tend to vote in their favor, it shouldn't surprise us when those groups are targeted.

I don't know if it's particularly "racist." The last I heard, conservatives also have opportunities to push voter registration in their favor. They do this with a vengeance in (white) suburbs and small towns all across America.

If they have a message that they think urban minorities or any other groups need to hear, they should feel free to join Dems (and compete with them) in voter reg drives in targeted areas. The GOP has done a fair bit of that with Cuban-Americans in Florida and with some other Latino groups across the country, so it isn't like it would be a new experience for them.

But let's not forget that voter reg drives are also powered by formally non-partisan groups--civic orgs, fraternal lodges, religious societies, the Junior League, League of Women Voters, and so on. Some of these are only nominally or quasi non-partisan, of course, but a few of them probably do have more of an altruistic vision.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2020, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
2,208 posts, read 1,894,085 times
Reputation: 2465
I believe that we should prohibit recipients of public assistance to vote (we should request at least skipping current election cycle if one has received assistance for more than half of it). Otherwise, people not paying taxes vote for politicians promising to give them more freebies. Isn't that wrong?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2020, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,580,317 times
Reputation: 3365
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit View Post
I believe that we should prohibit recipients of public assistance to vote (we should request at least skipping current election cycle if one has received assistance for more than half of it). Otherwise, people not paying taxes vote for politicians promising to give them more freebies. Isn't that wrong?
Public assistance? That would include people receiving unemployment benefits, right? Social security recipients? Not very nice, especially during a pandemic. Also not very nice if it refers to people on welfare, etc.

If this idea applies to people who don't pay taxes, would that just apply to public assistance recipients, or all people who don't pay taxes? That could wind up disenfranchising the current occupant of the White House.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2020, 02:57 PM
 
3,313 posts, read 4,311,709 times
Reputation: 4645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax View Post
Social security recipients?
Recipients of regular social security were taxed on their work earnings so it is NOT "public assistance". Are you really that stupid?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2020, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Bay View, Milwaukee
2,481 posts, read 4,580,317 times
Reputation: 3365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
Recipients of regular social security were taxed on their work earnings so it is NOT "public assistance". Are you really that stupid?
Yes, I am! Thanks for playing! And you?

But seriously, you can just google it:

https://www.census.gov/topics/income...nce/about.html

As you'll note in the document, Social Security is considered a form of "public assistance" because it is an official social insurance program:

There are two major types of public assistance programs; social welfare programs and social insurance programs.

Benefits received from social welfare programs are usually based on a low income means-tested eligibility criteria.

Some of the major federal, state, and local social welfare programs are:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), including Pass through Child Support
General Assistance (GA)

Benefits received from social insurance programs are usually based on eligibility criteria such as age, employment status, or being a veteran.

Some of the major federal, state, and local social insurance programs are:

Social security (self and on behalf of a dependent child)
Department of Veterans' Affairs benefits (except Veteran's pension)
Unemployment insurance compensation
Workers' compensation
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Wisconsin
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top